Holding Liberal voters to account: Electoral reform first up

157 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas
Holding Liberal voters to account: Electoral reform first up

*

jas

Yes, as someone else here posted, a knot has been removed from our collective guts.

But I am tired of being vigilant of my government, and I fully expect a string of new broken promises to begin. Rather than hold Trudeau or the Lib MPs to account, I hold Liberal voters, and I expect them to work for the change they claim was coming.

- Changing FPTP - I just looked it up on Liberal.ca. Nowhere do they mention they will change this.

- C-51

- Marijuana legalization

- Restoring environmental standards

- Restoring CBC funding

- An open discussion about pipelines and the oil economy

jjuares

jas wrote:

Yes, as someone else here posted, a knot has been removed from our collective guts.

But I am tired of being vigilant of my government, and I fully expect a string of new broken promises to begin. Rather than hold Trudeau or the Lib MPs to account, I hold Liberal voters, and I expect them to work for the change they claim was coming.

- Changing FPTP - I just looked it up on Liberal.ca. Nowhere do they mention they will change this.

- C-51

- Marijuana legalization

- Restoring environmental standards

- Restoring CBC funding

- An open discussion about pipelines and the oil economy


The Liberals if they change FPTP they will bring in ranked ballot which they think will help them.

Mighty AC

The Liberals committed to implementing the system proposed by an all-party and citizens committee, within 18 months. I am committed to holding them to that promise.  

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/?shownew=1 

jas

Mighty AC wrote:

The Liberals committed to implementing the system proposed by an all-party and citizens committee, within 18 months. I am committed to holding them to that promise.  

We look forward to that.

Aristotleded24

jjuares wrote:
jas wrote:

Yes, as someone else here posted, a knot has been removed from our collective guts.

But I am tired of being vigilant of my government, and I fully expect a string of new broken promises to begin. Rather than hold Trudeau or the Lib MPs to account, I hold Liberal voters, and I expect them to work for the change they claim was coming.

- Changing FPTP - I just looked it up on Liberal.ca. Nowhere do they mention they will change this.

- C-51

- Marijuana legalization

- Restoring environmental standards

- Restoring CBC funding

- An open discussion about pipelines and the oil economy

The Liberals if they change FPTP they will bring in ranked ballot which they think will help them.

That's actually one promise I hope the Liberals do break. Ranked balloting only marginalizes minor parties. Just look at Australia.

Pondering

Mighty AC wrote:

The Liberals committed to implementing the system proposed by an all-party and citizens committee, within 18 months. I am committed to holding them to that promise.  

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/?shownew=1 

I'm not holding my breath on that one and I only want it to happen if it has social licence. It was not central to Trudeau's campaign or platform so I would not agree that it was what voters were voting for.

There will not be a federal election before 4 or more years so there is no urgency. There is plenty of time to let Canadians have their say. It's just one aspect of democractic reform and I don't think the most important.

wage zombie

Canadians just had our say.  We won't have another say for another four years.

wage zombie

jas wrote:

- Changing FPTP - I just looked it up on Liberal.ca. Nowhere do they mention they will change this.

- C-51

- Marijuana legalization

- Restoring environmental standards

- Restoring CBC funding

- An open discussion about pipelines and the oil economy

I expect we will see CBC funding restored.

I don't think we will see much else.  I don't think any electoral reform will be proportional.

jas

Pondering wrote:
I'm not holding my breath on that one and I only want it to happen if it has social licence. It was not central to Trudeau's campaign or platform so I would not agree that it was what voters were voting for.

No, I think it was a pretty major tenet of his platform. It certainly was propagated on social media as something we can rely on.

Trudeau confident electoral reform will be election issue

Justin Trudeau vows to end 1st-past-the-post voting in platform speech

Andrew Coyne: Justin Trudeau’s proposed reform package is serious, substantive and radical

Plus,

Liberal.ca wrote:
We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

jas

wage zombie wrote:
I expect we will see CBC funding restored.

I don't think we will see much else. 

I agree on CBC. I think we might see a few more things, and I'm asking Canadian Liberal voters to walk their talk.

Pondering

jas wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I'm not holding my breath on that one and I only want it to happen if it has social licence. It was not central to Trudeau's campaign or platform so I would not agree that it was what voters were voting for.

No, I think it was a pretty major tenet of his platform. It certainly was propagated on social media as something we can rely on.

Trudeau confident electoral reform will be election issue

Justin Trudeau vows to end 1st-past-the-post voting in platform speech

Andrew Coyne: Justin Trudeau’s proposed reform package is serious, substantive and radical

Plus,

Liberal.ca wrote:
We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

I definitely see the all party committee coming. I don't see a consensus coming on drastic changes. The most I can see coming out of it is ranked ballots.

JKR

Mighty AC wrote:

The Liberals committed to implementing the system proposed by an all-party and citizens committee, within 18 months. I am committed to holding them to that promise.  

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/?shownew=1 

I think this all-party Parliamentary committee will end up supporting MMP-lite with ranked ballots.

I'd be happy with that kind of compromise.

Sean in Ottawa

Ranked ballots are only a way to transfer support from smaller parties towards a larger party.

Ranked ballot do a better job than FPTP in terms of allocating support between the top two parties only -- but that is it -- beyond that they serve to erase and replace support for alternative views.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

- Brothels

- Marijuana

- Safe Injection sites

- TPP

- C-51

- social housing

This is what I want from the LIberals. Not holding my breath,mind you.

Mighty AC

JKR wrote:
I think this all-party Parliamentary committee will end up supporting MMP-lite with ranked ballots.

I'd be happy with that kind of compromise.

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ranked ballots are only a way to transfer support from smaller parties towards a larger party.

Ranked ballot do a better job than FPTP in terms of allocating support between the top two parties only -- but that is it -- beyond that they serve to erase and replace support for alternative views.

I agree with Sean, a ranked ballot is not proportional or a win for democracy. A ranked ballot would be useful for determining the local candidate under a MMP system though.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ranked ballots are only a way to transfer support from smaller parties towards a larger party.

Ranked ballot do a better job than FPTP in terms of allocating support between the top two parties only -- but that is it -- beyond that they serve to erase and replace support for alternative views.

I disagree because it is done on a riding level not a national level. Strategic voting isn't necessary because if you first choice doesn't get in your vote isn't "wasted". People could have voted their true preference, Liberal or NDP, knowing it wouldn't mean a vote for Harper. The Greens could get a lot more votes out of it.

I think restoring the per vote subsidy is important.

Malcontent

wage zombie wrote:

Canadians just had our say.  We won't have another say for another four years.

 

But ewe never got what we voted for though. We voted for a lib minority.

mmphosis

Pondering wrote:

I'm not holding my breath on that one and I only want it to happen if it has social licence. It was not central to Trudeau's campaign or platform so I would not agree that it was what voters were voting for.

There will not be a federal election before 4 or more years so there is no urgency. There is plenty of time to let Canadians have their say. It's just one aspect of democractic reform and I don't think the most important.

Starting now, there are four years to hold the Liberals accountable to all the promises they made.  Liberal leader Justin Trudeau vowed that the 2015 general election would be the last one using the first-past-the-post voting system.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-vows-to-end-1st-past-the-...

I think that putting in place Mixed Member Proportional Representation as put forward by the NDP and Greens is the most important aspect of democratic reform.  But, I agree with you that there are other important aspects of electoral reform such as:

  • allowing and enabling Canadians to make informed decisions on the direction of our country
  • putting initiatives on ballots, and holding more elections
  • implementing electronic ballots with a full paper trail as we already have in some municipal elections
  • implementing voting over the internet as an option possibly using the crypto infrastructure of crypto currencies to keep the ballot secret
  • limiting the election duration to a maximum of 30 days

What ideas for electoral reform did you have in mind?

Pondering

mmphosis wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I'm not holding my breath on that one and I only want it to happen if it has social licence. It was not central to Trudeau's campaign or platform so I would not agree that it was what voters were voting for.

There will not be a federal election before 4 or more years so there is no urgency. There is plenty of time to let Canadians have their say. It's just one aspect of democractic reform and I don't think the most important.

Starting now, there are four years to hold the Liberals accountable to all the promises they made.  Liberal leader Justin Trudeau vowed that the 2015 general election would be the last one using the first-past-the-post voting system.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-vows-to-end-1st-past-the-...

I think that puting in place Mixed Member Proportional Representation as put forward by the NDP and Greens is the most important aspect of democratic reform.  But, I agree with you that there are other important aspects of electoral reform such as:

  • allowing and enabling Canadians to make informed decisions on the direction of our country
  • putting initiatives on ballots, and holding more elections
  • implementing electronic ballots with a full paper trail as we already have in some municipal elections
  • implementing voting over the internet as an option possibly using the crypto infrastructure of crypto currencies to keep the ballot secret
  • limiting the election duration to a maximum of 30 days

What ideas for electoral reform did you have in mind?

I'm a realist. MMP is highly unlikely unless it gets strong support from a majority of Canadians. I don't think that's going to happen. Many people prefer the stability of majority governments.

You frame it as "false" majorities because they are won without a true majority of votes but that is the way our system is designed deliberately. Some ridings comprise of far fewer people. This amplifies the rural voice and the voices of the smaller provinces.

MMP amplifies the power of parties as MPs are even more beholden to their parties than they are now. Coalitions that add up to more than 50% of the vote don't necessarily represent more than 50% of the population in the decisions they take. They make deals that implement policies that 50% of the population didn't vote for.

For most of Harper's reign the majority of Canadians were satisfied with his leadership. Polls consistently showed people approved of the direction of the country and of Harper's economic record. Scandal after scandal failed to hurt him.

Many Canadians see the job of choosing a government like choosing a general contractor. You pick one, then they run the country until you pick another.

JKR

Mighty AC wrote:

JKR wrote:
I think this all-party Parliamentary committee will end up supporting MMP-lite with ranked ballots.

I'd be happy with that kind of compromise.

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ranked ballots are only a way to transfer support from smaller parties towards a larger party.

Ranked ballot do a better job than FPTP in terms of allocating support between the top two parties only -- but that is it -- beyond that they serve to erase and replace support for alternative views.

I agree with Sean, a ranked ballot is not proportional or a win for democracy. A ranked ballot would be useful for determining the local candidate under a MMP system though.

That is what I meant. I think the all-party committee will recommend MMP using ranked ballots to determine the local candidate part of the MMP system. Ranked ballots could also be used for the party ballot as long as only the primary vote is taken into consideration. Otherwise the system would not be proportional. A ranked ballot for the party list would also clearly show which party has the most support nationally because it would consider 2nd and 3rd votes, etc....

thorin_bane

MMP or bust. But I doubt the Liberals will do that. They will sign TPP maybe cut tax for the wealthy(without the new tax bracket) Do squat about pot, nothing about the senate, nothing for child care or aboriginals, they will sign other trade deals, bomb a few countries with no boots on the ground, strangle a protestor or two, and enerally carry on the same agenda that harper has.

Webgear

Cancelling the F-35 and finding a better replacement aircraft. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ranked ballots are only a way to transfer support from smaller parties towards a larger party.

Ranked ballot do a better job than FPTP in terms of allocating support between the top two parties only -- but that is it -- beyond that they serve to erase and replace support for alternative views.

I disagree because it is done on a riding level not a national level. Strategic voting isn't necessary because if you first choice doesn't get in your vote isn't "wasted". People could have voted their true preference, Liberal or NDP, knowing it wouldn't mean a vote for Harper. The Greens could get a lot more votes out of it.

What if you support a party in your area that is marginal and you find the top two choices equally distasteful? How does ranked balloting help that person?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Rather than hold Trudeau or the Lib MPs to account, I hold Liberal voters, and I expect them to work for the change they claim was coming.

1.  How will we know who they are?

2.  How will we decide whether they're "working for change" hard enough, or at all?

Quote:
What if you support a party in your area that is marginal and you find the top two choices equally distasteful? How does ranked balloting help that person?

That can be the case any time "second" or "third" or "tenth" choices are factored in.

Which would you rather have?:

1.  A new car for every voter

2.  A rusty fish hook for every voter

3.  A moldy potato for every voter

Sorry, but option #1 isn't on the table any more.  But look, you got that moldy potato you wanted as your second choice.  Better than a rusty fish hook, right?

If I'm not mistaken, there do exist electoral models that would permit you to choose #1 above, and then choose "I don't want any other option to win".  I seem to recall using some variant of Condorcet voting to elect mods at another discussion board, and it provided that option.

 

 

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ranked ballots are only a way to transfer support from smaller parties towards a larger party.

Ranked ballot do a better job than FPTP in terms of allocating support between the top two parties only -- but that is it -- beyond that they serve to erase and replace support for alternative views.

That's nice.  Then Liberals and Conservatives can more equally share the work of advancing corporate multinational interests.  And in doing so, they can also share the rewards of plush board appointments more equally.

mark_alfred

I posted this in another thread before I became aware of this thread, so I'm reposting here:

mark_alfred wrote:

The Liberals promised this will be the last FPTP election, along with other reforms.  Various considerations, including MMP, would be looked at.  I think this is a very good opportunity to push for MMP.  I feel we should all write Trudeau and the members frequently about this.  I know I will be.

In looking at the election results, the seats under a proportional system would have been more similar to what's portrayed below:

Under PR:

Lib:  134.  Cons:  108.  NDP:  67.  Greens:  12.  Bloc:  16.

Explanation:

Lib seats won (FPTP):  184.

Proportion of seats in the House this represents (=184/338*100):  54%

Lib actual vote share and vote count:  39.5% (6,928,514)

Seats Lib would have had under proportional representation (39.5% of 338):  134 (difference btw FPTP - PR = +50)

 

Con seats won (FPTP):  99.

Proportion of seats in the House this represents (=99/338*100):  29%

Con actual vote share and vote count:  31.9% (5,597,565)

Seats Con would have had under proportional representation (31.9% of 338):  108 (difference btw FPTP - PR = -9)

 

NDP seats won (FPTP):  44.

Proportion of seats in the House this represents (=44/338*100):  13%

NDP actual vote share and vote count:  19.7% (3,460,288)

Seats NDP would have had under proportional representation (19.7% of 338):  67 (difference btw FPTP - PR = -23)

 

Bloc seats won (FPTP):  10.

Proportion of seats in the House this represents (=10/338*100):  3%

Bloc actual vote share and vote count:  4.7% (818,652)

Seats Bloc would have had under proportional representation (4.7% of 338):  16 (difference btw FPTP - PR = -6)

Of course, the Bloc is a regional party, so it may make sense to calculate it from a Quebec only perspective.  They won 10 which is 12.8% of the votes in Quebec.  The number of votes they got is 19.3% of the votes cast in Quebec.  So, PR for them looking exclusively at Quebec would equal 19.3% * 78 = 16 (rounded up, which using the federal figures was also rounded up, but it was a greater rounding up using the provincial figures -- for what it's worth, which really isn't much).

 

GR seats won (FPTP):  1.

Proportion of seats in the House this represents (=1/338*100):  0%

GR actual vote share and vote count:  3.5% (605,637)

Seats GR would have had under proportional representation (3.5% of 338):  12 (difference btw FPTP - PR = -11)

 

Note:  I anticipate that the numbers would have been a bit different too under PR, since people would no longer compromise their vote due to worrying about wasting it.

mmphosis

Pondering wrote:

I'm a realist. MMP is highly unlikely unless it gets strong support from a majority of Canadians. I don't think that's going to happen. Many people prefer the stability of majority governments.

You frame it as "false" majorities because they are won without a true majority of votes but that is the way our system is designed deliberately. Some ridings comprise of far fewer people. This amplifies the rural voice and the voices of the smaller provinces.

MMP amplifies the power of parties as MPs are even more beholden to their parties than they are now. Coalitions that add up to more than 50% of the vote don't necessarily represent more than 50% of the population in the decisions they take. They make deals that implement policies that 50% of the population didn't vote for.

For most of Harper's reign the majority of Canadians were satisfied with his leadership. Polls consistently showed people approved of the direction of the country and of Harper's economic record. Scandal after scandal failed to hurt him.

Many Canadians see the job of choosing a government like choosing a general contractor. You pick one, then they run the country until you pick another.

I'm a realist too, but maybe our realities are bit different.  Let's put MMP to an informed vote.  I get that you like same old party majorities (Liberal or Conservative) voted in with a marginable number of votes, whereas I prefer an informed electorate getting to decide based on real percentages.  The way our antiquated system was brought about may have been deliberate, but I would prefer far more inclusive ways of making important decisions.  We have corporate rights deals that a majority of the population did not vote for.

You talk about "leadership" and I don't doubt that Justin Trudeau is a popular leader.  I would go so far to say that his popularity is probably the main reason the Liberal party is back.  However, Justin Trudeau has said that he would loosen PMO control, and reverse the trend started by his father.  I hope he carries through with this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-justin-trudeau-inte...

For all of Harper's reign the majority of Canadians were NOT satisfied with his leadership.  Yesterday's election, a poll of close to 70% of Canadian voters, clearly showed that.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ranked ballots are only a way to transfer support from smaller parties towards a larger party.

Ranked ballot do a better job than FPTP in terms of allocating support between the top two parties only -- but that is it -- beyond that they serve to erase and replace support for alternative views.

I disagree because it is done on a riding level not a national level. Strategic voting isn't necessary because if you first choice doesn't get in your vote isn't "wasted". People could have voted their true preference, Liberal or NDP, knowing it wouldn't mean a vote for Harper. The Greens could get a lot more votes out of it.

What if you support a party in your area that is marginal and you find the top two choices equally distasteful? How does ranked balloting help that person?

Ranked balloting would help that person as it would allow marginal parties to obtain first preference votes from other voters who prefer that party but don't vote for them because they feel that voting for them would just split the vote. Marginal parties are unfairly harmed under FPTP because many people who support them don't vote for them out of the fear of vote splitting. A good example is the Greens in this election. In this election, using a ranked ballot, the Greens would likely have received many more first preference votes from people who did not vote for them because they did not want to waste their vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning. So even if a Green voter felt that all the other choices were equally distasteful, that person would benefit from ranked voting because their preferred party's election results would have improved under a ranked voting system. Many Green supporters likely voted for the Liberals and NDP to keep Harper from winning. With FPTP the Greens now have to deal with the fact that they received only 3.5% of the votes. Ranked balloting would very likely have seen them win many more first preference votes so their long term viability would have been in much better shape.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Rather than hold Trudeau or the Lib MPs to account, I hold Liberal voters, and I expect them to work for the change they claim was coming.

1.  How will we know who they are?

2.  How will we decide whether they're "working for change" hard enough, or at all?

Quote:
What if you support a party in your area that is marginal and you find the top two choices equally distasteful? How does ranked balloting help that person?

That can be the case any time "second" or "third" or "tenth" choices are factored in.

Which would you rather have?:

1.  A new car for every voter

2.  A rusty fish hook for every voter

3.  A moldy potato for every voter

Sorry, but option #1 isn't on the table any more.  But look, you got that moldy potato you wanted as your second choice.  Better than a rusty fish hook, right?

If I'm not mistaken, there do exist electoral models that would permit you to choose #1 above, and then choose "I don't want any other option to win".  I seem to recall using some variant of Condorcet voting to elect mods at another discussion board, and it provided that option.

 

 

A ranked ballot can allow people to make as many or few choices as they want. That's the system the political parties use in Canada to choose their national leaders. The parties also use runoff voting to select their own candidates and staff. The parties never use FPTP in house. Another name for ranked voting is "instant runoff voting."

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
Ranked balloting would help that person as it would allow marginal parties to obtain first preference votes from other voters who prefer that party but don't vote for them because they feel that voting for them would just split the vote. Marginal parties are unfairly harmed under FPTP because many people who support them don't vote for them out of the fear of vote splitting. A good example is the Greens in this election. In this election, using a ranked ballot, the Greens would likely have received many more first preference votes from people who did not vote for them because they did not want to waste their vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning.

And a great deal of good that would have done them, as Elizabeth May would still be the only Green MP in the House.

JKR wrote:
So even if a Green voter felt that all the other choices were equally distasteful, that person would benefit from ranked voting because their preferred party's election results would have improved under a ranked voting system. Many Green supporters likely voted for the Liberals and NDP to keep Harper from winning. With FPTP the Greens now have to deal with the fact that they received only 3.5% of the votes. Ranked balloting would very likely have seen them win many more first preference votes so their long term viability would have been in much better shape.

I know how ranked balloting works, and you failed to address the scenario I gave of someone finding the other 2 parties distasteful. If that person filled out his or her ballot, (s)he would still elect someone (s)he doesn't like, and the first choice wouldn't count for anything. That's no improvement over what we have.

takeitslowly

i dont think most people even know what the current electoral system is about

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Sure we do.

  • Each registered participant says an oath and receives a coupon.
  • The participant punches that coupon to indicate which philosophy best describes them.
  • The punched coupons are laid out in order of size.
  • The club that received the most "large coupons" gets to drive.
  • The club that received the second-most "large coupons" gets to call "shotgun".
  • Everyone else sits in the back and complains "ARE WE THERE YET??"

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I know how ranked balloting works, and you failed to address the scenario I gave of someone finding the other 2 parties distasteful. If that person filled out his or her ballot, (s)he would still elect someone (s)he doesn't like, and the first choice wouldn't count for anything. That's no improvement over what we have.

Even under PR there is no guarantee that the party you support will elect a representative or that representative will have any power in parliament.

Ranked ballots at the community level means the members of that community get the representative most prefer and it does not interfere with MMP if people decide they want to go there.

 

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
Ranked balloting would help that person as it would allow marginal parties to obtain first preference votes from other voters who prefer that party but don't vote for them because they feel that voting for them would just split the vote. Marginal parties are unfairly harmed under FPTP because many people who support them don't vote for them out of the fear of vote splitting. A good example is the Greens in this election. In this election, using a ranked ballot, the Greens would likely have received many more first preference votes from people who did not vote for them because they did not want to waste their vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning.

And a great deal of good that would have done them, as Elizabeth May would still be the only Green MP in the House.

JKR wrote:
So even if a Green voter felt that all the other choices were equally distasteful, that person would benefit from ranked voting because their preferred party's election results would have improved under a ranked voting system. Many Green supporters likely voted for the Liberals and NDP to keep Harper from winning. With FPTP the Greens now have to deal with the fact that they received only 3.5% of the votes. Ranked balloting would very likely have seen them win many more first preference votes so their long term viability would have been in much better shape.

I know how ranked balloting works, and you failed to address the scenario I gave of someone finding the other 2 parties distasteful. If that person filled out his or her ballot, (s)he would still elect someone (s)he doesn't like, and the first choice wouldn't count for anything. That's no improvement over what we have.

I agree. For people who only like one candidate and dislike all the other candidates equally, ranked voting would be exactly the same as FPTP single-member plurality voting. A person who likes only one candidate and dislikes all the other candidates to the same degree would just rank the candidate they like in first place and leave the rest of their ballot blank. This would be the same as filling out a FPTP single-member plurality ballot where only first preferences are recorded. But this type of voter is in the minority. Most voters have a greater level of differentiation between the candidates. So for the population as a whole, ranked single-member voting would be beneficial even though for a minority of voters it wouldn't.

takeitslowly

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Sure we do.

  • Each registered participant says an oath and receives a coupon.
  • The participant punches that coupon to indicate which philosophy best describes them.
  • The punched coupons are laid out in order of size.
  • The club that received the most "large coupons" gets to drive.
  • The club that received the second-most "large coupons" gets to call "shotgun".
  • Everyone else sits in the back and complains "ARE WE THERE YET??"

 

that sounds very complicated. Sounds like we need real change to simplify the process...I am just going to stick to voting liberal for real changes and stopping the conservative. 

Brachina

 In most ridings Greens as a second choice would in practice just be for show, they'd never get high enough to pull in second choices so all those votes may as well not exist. Its a way of pretending you have a choice and that your vote matters, is such a system, it doesn't only MMPR is worth doing.

 They did a study or something awhile back thag showed this would be bad for the Greens and Tories, at the time the NDP was in third in the polls, it was before the Notley poll bump, and it still had the NDP winning more seats then the Tories. 

 I point this out to show that its not about STV being worse for the party I support, because frankly its not, its actually more of anadvantage for the NDP because the NDP has a very large potential voter that it has a hard time cracking because of FPTP, that it could milk in a STV electoral system.

 

Doug Woodard

JKR wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
In this election, using a ranked ballot, the Greens would likely have received many more first preference votes from people who did not vote for them because they did not want to waste their vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning.

And a great deal of good that would have done them, as Elizabeth May would still be the only Green MP in the House.

JKR wrote:
So even if a Green voter felt that all the other choices were equally distasteful, that person would benefit from ranked voting because their preferred party's election results would have improved under a ranked voting system. Many Green supporters likely voted for the Liberals and NDP to keep Harper from winning. With FPTP the Greens now have to deal with the fact that they received only 3.5% of the votes. Ranked balloting would very likely have seen them win many more first preference votes so their long term viability would have been in much better shape.

I agree. For people who only like one candidate and dislike all the other candidates equally, ranked voting would be exactly the same as FPTP single-member plurality voting. A person who likes only one candidate and dislikes all the other candidates to the same degree would just rank the candidate they like in first place and leave the rest of their ballot blank. This would be the same as filling out a FPTP single-member plurality ballot where only first preferences are recorded. But this type of voter is in the minority. Most voters have a greater level of differentiation between the candidates. So for the population as a whole, ranked single-member voting would be beneficial even though for a minority of voters it wouldn't.

From memory, a recent poll giving voters' second choices reported 47% of Conservatives giving "no second choice." That response was given by about 12% to about 25% of voters for other parties; Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green. So the Conservatives appear to be likely to be most heavily disadvantaged by AV/IRV - unless the half of them who seem to think that all the other parties are Bolsheviks leading the country to damnation, change their minds.

My guess is that with AV/IRV the Greens might have won Victoria, possibly a few others. The Green-inclined voters now seem, strategic voting aside, to be about 8-12% of the population. That could be built on from election to election.

However in the Australian House of Representatives using AV/IRV, the Greens rarely get elected. That may be partly because the strongest Green candidates run for the Senate, elected by PR-STV, where they can and do get elected.

Doug Woodard

Brachina wrote:

 In most ridings Greens as a second choice would in practice just be for show, they'd never get high enough to pull in second choices so all those votes may as well not exist. Its a way of pretending you have a choice and that your vote matters, is such a system, it doesn't only MMPR is worth doing.

 They did a study or something awhile back thag showed this would be bad for the Greens and Tories, at the time the NDP was in third in the polls, it was before the Notley poll bump, and it still had the NDP winning more seats then the Tories. 

 I point this out to show that its not about STV being worse for the party I support, because frankly its not, its actually more of anadvantage for the NDP because the NDP has a very large potential voter that it has a hard time cracking because of FPTP, that it could milk in a STV electoral system.

Brachina, in an AV/IRV riding, there is not much point in ranking a small party candidate after a not-so-small party candidate. The odds are that your second choice candidate won't be there when your vote comes back.

What would make sense would be to rank say Communist 1, Marxist-Leninist 2, Green 3, NDP 4, Liberal 5. Or Libertarian 1, Christian Heritage 2, Conservative 3.

But in a PR-STV constituency with multiple seats and a quota, and transfers of surplus votes from  elected candidates, the situation is different, as long as the small party hangs in long enough for your vote to come to it.

The Irish PR-STV system with average number of seats per constituency ("district magnitude"/DM) of 3.84 (range 3 to 5) delivers what I consider to be an acceptable degree of proportionality, although there is a definite bonus to larger parties. The proportionality for small parties depends a lot on whether the voters feel that the party is eligible for transfers, or not. The Green Party in the past got 6 seats, 3.6% of the total on 3.8% of the votes  in one election in which it ran only in its stronger constituencies, or 4.7% of votes when it ran in every constituency. Conversely Sinn Fein, being affiliated with the IRA, got 5 or 6% of the seats on about 9% of the votes, before the peace process. With a DM around 5 the proportionality gets perceptibly better.

I think the main attraction of MMP for Canada is that the constituencies in sparsely populated areas being single-seat, are smaller in area and easier to campaign in. Also, there is the popular belief, I would say romantic delusion, that single-seat ridings allow the voters to hold their MP accountable as well as to get better attention from government. With MMP it's also easier to get a high degree of strictly party proportionality, at the cost of a threshold, and precautions against colluding parties (one for the list and one for the constituencies).

While AV/IRV/RBV is technically a limiting case (DM = 1) of STV, I think it is less confusing to reserve "STV" for use as "PR-STV", the (more or less) proportional form with DM > 1 and a quota. The Australians speak of "quota-preferential voting" which also avoids confusion.  

HisHighness

Ranked ballot is the best choice for Canada as it will further destroy the Conservatives and NDP, and put the Liberals where they belong: in government far more often.

You guys can whine about how PR is more fair all you want. All PR does is allow loser parties like the Greens and the NDP to have far more power than they should. And that's the reason you all want it, just like I want ranked ballot because it helps my side. The only difference is I'm honest about it whereas you guys try to BS the Canadian people with "fairness" arguments. What's more fair about a party that gets %5 or %19 of the vote getting %50 of the power than a party that gets %40 of the vote getting %100?

If you could come up with a system that divides power, not seats up according to percentage I'd agree it was fair. Seats are not exactly the same as power. The NDP had 103 seats in the last parliament and were just as useless as the NDP always are, Chuck Cadman had 1 seat in 2005 and changed the course of Canadian history.

Sorry guys, we won and you lost. The NDP's 15 minutes are up and in 2019 we finish the job we started in 2015 by wiping them off the electoral map. You thought losing useless MPs like Stoffer, Leslie, Dewar and Harris was bad? Just wait until you're on the outside of Parliament looking in.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

I posted this in another thread before I became aware of this thread, so I'm reposting here:

mark_alfred wrote:

The Liberals promised this will be the last FPTP election, along with other reforms.  Various considerations, including MMP, would be looked at.  I think this is a very good opportunity to push for MMP.  I feel we should all write Trudeau and the members frequently about this.  I know I will be.

In looking at the election results, the seats under a proportional system would have been more similar to what's portrayed below:

Under PR:

Lib:  134.  Cons:  108.  NDP:  67.  Greens:  12.  Bloc:  16.

Which would have led to a minority Liberal government, unless the rules of MMP also change Canada's tradition of the pary with a plurality of votes forming government and the other supporting them on a case by case basis.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

- Brothels

- Marijuana

- Safe Injection sites

- TPP

- C-51

- social housing

This is what I want from the LIberals. Not holding my breath,mind you.

Brothels won't happen and were not proposed.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-wary-of-proposal-to-regul...

"For now, I'm just very, very mindful that the Supreme Court came down very clearly that the current approach is not protecting extremely vulnerable women and sex workers and we need to make sure that we are finding a way to keep vulnerable Canadians protected from violence that surrounds prostitution but also is intrinsic to prostitution," Trudeau said.

In French, Trudeau went further, saying it's important to recognize that "prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." He called for a "responsible, informed debate" on the issue.

Trudeau also said Liberals are "certainly going to look at" the so-called Nordic model, which penalizes those who purchase sex, not those who sell it.

Any party that legalizes prostitution in Canada would pay a hefty political price for opening up that particular can of worms and cause a resurgence of support for the Conservatives.

Brachina

 Trudeau proves once again he's a moron, violence isn't intrisic to prostitution, it would have to be instisic to sex itself for that to be true. If it wasn't for Trudeau talent as a puppet and con artist, he'd have no talent at all.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 Trudeau proves once again he's a moron, violence isn't intrisic to prostitution, it would have to be instisic to sex itself for that to be true. If it wasn't for Trudeau talent as a puppet and con artist, he'd have no talent at all.

Not going to have that argument again. Just pointing out this is not a promise Trudeau made and neither did the NDP because it would be political suicide to do so.

JKR

Brachina wrote:

 In most ridings Greens as a second choice would in practice just be for show, they'd never get high enough to pull in second choices so all those votes may as well not exist. Its a way of pretending you have a choice and that your vote matters, is such a system, it doesn't only MMPR is worth doing.

 They did a study or something awhile back thag showed this would be bad for the Greens and Tories, at the time the NDP was in third in the polls, it was before the Notley poll bump, and it still had the NDP winning more seats then the Tories. 

 I point this out to show that its not about STV being worse for the party I support, because frankly its not, its actually more of anadvantage for the NDP because the NDP has a very large potential voter that it has a hard time cracking because of FPTP, that it could milk in a STV electoral system.

 

I also think MMPR is the best system for Canada. If the electoral reform committee is evidence based, they will recommend a variant of MMPR suitable for Canada. It will also be up to Canadians to lobby the committee to insure that it picks a fair voting system. Helping FairVoteCanada during the next year or so will further this process.

babbler 8

HisHighness wrote:

Ranked ballot is the best choice for Canada as it will further destroy the Conservatives and NDP, and put the Liberals where they belong: in government far more often.

You guys can whine about how PR is more fair all you want. All PR does is allow loser parties like the Greens and the NDP to have far more power than they should. And that's the reason you all want it, just like I want ranked ballot because it helps my side.

Wow, thanks for being honest about this, but you are pretty much the only Liberal who is.. The rest concern troll everyone else and pretend that other parties benefit by getting votes. Votes are useless if it means fewer seats and less power.That's quite the entitled attitude though The reason Liberals love ranked ballots is because they think it will ensure they stay in power for a very very long time with majority government. They won't ever lose until their oppostion come together in one party which is obviously nearly impossible.

Alternative Vote (AV) is usually what this system is referred to. Whenever it is brought in for multi-member legislative bodies it is pretty much explicitly to destroy the opposition and the smaller parties. In Austrailia is was brought in to stop Labour 100 years ago when a rural right wing party emerged in addition to the Conservatives. It has been a two party system ever since.

Closer to home it was breifly brought in by the Liberal-Conservative coalition that formed to stop the CCF. It also created the two party system we have in BC because it effectively killed the PCs and nearly did the same to the Liberals before the Socreds got rid of it.

MMP is the only way to go. STV is good in theory, but it is difficult to understand and requires computers to count the vote.

JKR

babbler 8 wrote:

MMP is the only way to go. STV is good in theory, but it is difficult to understand and requires computers to count the vote.

STV is a great electoral system for jurisdictions that cover small areas and have large populations. Canada definitely does not fit that criteria. STV would be a great electoral system for civic elections for cities with large populations like Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. It would also work very well for a province like PEI.

MMPR is the best system for a country like Canada that has a sparse population living in a huge country.

Doug Woodard

babbler 8 wrote:

MMP is the only way to go. STV is good in theory, but it is difficult to understand and requires computers to count the vote.

babbler, PR-STV has been in use in Tasmania since 1909, and in the Irish Republic and in Malta since 1921 - all with hand counts.

Do you think that Canadians are dumber or less well educated than people in these places a century ago?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
MMP is the only way to go. STV is good in theory, but it is difficult to understand and requires computers to count the vote.

So it has to wait until somebody invents computers.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What do we want?

- Electoral Reform!!

When do we want it??

- NOW!!

What form will it take?

- STV!

- MMP!

- IRV!

- That's definitely the better system if you're deadwood, but the party owes you a favour!

- Wait, what?  That's not what we agreed on earlier, Ron!

- Fuck that shit! It'll never fly in the North!

- I swear to God I'll vote for FPTP before I vote for something so stupid!!

- If we applied your system to the 1993 election the Conservatives would have won a majority!!  It's all on my blog!

- There's another system, based on large prime numbers, that's used to elect dogcatchers in Papua New Guinea!

- I never knew you hated democracy so much!!!

- Seriously?  Too hard to understand!

- Seriously?  Not "proportional enough"!

- Of course a closet Liberal would prefer that one (LOL!)

- Just fucking do it my way and "git 'er done!!"  Let our grandchildren undo our mistake!!

- We'll never have electoral reform because the government keeps sabotaging it.

mark_alfred

It seems the campaign to stop electoral reform and preserve FPTP has begun.  Check this article out:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeaus-electoral-reform-p...

It's important to put pressure on Trudeau to keep his promise of electoral reform.

Pages